I’d like to know how a guy who writes letters that sound as though they were written by a 12-year-old compelled to fullfill the class “pen pal” assignment got to Congress.
(A pervy 12-year-old.)
Well, no. Who exactly is saying that?? Nobody I’ve seen.
What people are saying is that the initial emails (see link in previous post) are ‘off’ enough that a closer look is definitely called for.
So would I. But most social liberals, social conservatives, and social moderates would look at those emails and say, “I wouldn’t want this guy around my kids.” If your kids’ fifty-something gym teacher had sent them emails like this during summer vacation, what would you do? I’d make copies of them and give them to the principal and a guidance counselor, and I’d make it damned clear that (a) he’d better stay away from my kids, and (b) they’d better make sure he isn’t hitting on other people’s kids too.
That isn’t labeling him a sexual predator, but it gets the message across that I think it’s enough of a possibility that they’d better look into it.
Please produce evidence that “most social liberals” would oppose that sort of response, and would consider it prejudice.
Then what does “Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts’ decision to ban gay scoutmasters?” mean?
But the only way “most social liberals” are being inconsistent is if they have, in the past, coddled and protected persons who’ve sexually preyed on minors. If gay scoutmasters are such people, then the argument holds water. But not otherwise.
Well, look at the emails. Here’s a 52 year old man, emailing a 16 year old out of the blue. He’s got no particular reason to write, and doesn’t know enough about the 16 year old to ask any specific questions, but he’s trying to get a conversation started anyway. It’s like the conversations men and women have in singles bars, when you’ve approached a woman simply on the basis of her looks, but you’re fishing around for something to say. Only this is an email, so there’s no need to even be having this conversation if you’ve got nothing to say, unless something funny is going on.
I agree. That’s why either you should hand any investigation over to people who know WTF they’re doing, or if you insist on doing it yourself, do it in such a way that you aren’t identifying anyone yourself. (See my Choice 2 above - how would that ruin someone’s life?)
NO. Your first duty is to make sure nobody’s using the pages as their private playground. You investigate at suspicion of misconduct; if you’ve got specific evidence, it goes to the cops right then and there.
Emails are a bit more definitive than rumors. So by your own standard, “it’d be hypocritical to complain that Foley wasn’t investigated.”
We agree on that.
So, looking at the emails, what do you think?
(On preview) tomndebb - that’s part of the creepiness, isn’t it? He’s 52 and trying to start up a conversation with a 16 year old from scratch. So stylewise, he aims for 16, but hits 12.
Which further underlines the reality that he doesn’t really know this kid worth shit, but he’s going way out of his way to talk to him anyway.
Martin Hyde, look at it this way. I’m just about the same age as Foley. I can make conversation with the sons and daughters of my stepbrother and stepsister, and with the sons and daughters of my good friends, because I know enough about them already to have some sort of starting point. But I’d dread, I’d cringe, at the necessity of making small talk with a 16 year old I didn’t really know at all. Yet here he is, going out of his way to have that cringe-worthy conversation. How ‘off’ is that?? Pretty damned ‘off,’ I’d say.
Ephebophilia.
And yeah, I wish people would stop saying “pedophile”. Frankly, I’m hoping the Democrats capitalize on this. But that doesn’t mean I support people discussing the issue irrationally. Using accurate words would be a nice smart.
Hey tom - could you do me a favor? Seems that in the thread title, I left the ‘r’ out of ‘Journal’. If you could use your moderator superpowers to fix that, I’d be much obliged.
Let that be a lesson, kids: that’s what happens when you start threads at 5:30am. :smack:
And I’m hoping the Democrats don’t. Yes, “ephebophilia” is the correct term, but, really, so what? Getting into a (losing) semantic argument takes away from the impact and reality of the situation: a 52 year old Congressman wanted to know about the masturbatory habits of a 16 year old!
If press conferences start out with “let’s get precise here, because we all know that there’s a difference semantically between a 16 year old and a 12 year old and, while we’re at it, let’s also delve into the difference between two gays of consenting age and a man + a boy and, oh yeah, did we mention…” NO NO NO. Stop muddling the issue! Stop looking at trees when you’ve got a whole forest to work with! A MEMBER OF CONGRESS WANTED TO BONE A HIGH SCHOOLER! The public can call it whatever they damn well please. A CONGRESSMAN WANTED TO HAVE CONGRESS WITH A KID. The. End.
The WSJ is engaging in a pathetic attempt to whitewash Hastert’s negligence by switching the issue from ephebophilia* to homosexuality, and insinuating that those darn libruls who insist on tolerance for the latter have somehow impeded action against the former.
They should have thoroughly investigated the matter upon discovering this indication of an elected official possibly misusing his position to obtain sexual favors from a subordinate.
I hear they used to consider that a big deal back in '98…
Send me a picture of your family. OK
Send me a picture of you. Not OK.
Add to that questions about age, and references to how one of the other kids in such great shape, and there’s no question a red flag is raised.
Reminds of me a favor I did for a teacher friend of mine several years ago. I gave a talk about computers to her 4th grade class. They were smart and very engaged, and mobbed with requests afterwards. A few asked me for my e-mail address, and I thought it was hilarious that they even knew about e-mail (this was maybe 10 years ago). At any rate, it was almost at the end of the school year, and a few weeks into summer vacation I stared getting e-mails from some of the students asking me questions. I freaked a little at first because it was my work e-mail, and after talking things over with my friend, I sent polite answers back saying that I was working real hard and didn’t have time to answer their questions, but that they should ask their parents. Now, these really were children (as opposed to teenagers), so it was a little different, but there was no question in my mind that I shouldn’t be sending e-mails back and forth to these kids.
I read it as Ex saying that he wanted the Dems to take advantage of the Foley scandal, but as an aside, unrelated to their taking advantage, he wishes that people would use accurate terms for what occured. I didn’t think he was connecting the two.
This is an “excluded middle” type of argument, though, and there would have been no need for a rush to judgment if there had been an investigation. Foley should have been judged based on his actions, and the e-mails are completely inappropriate. The simple request for a picture is borderline inappropriate and something a smart man would not have done just in case someone thought it looked wrong. Taken as a whole, these e-mails (especially four) are definitely creepy. As I’ve mentioned in other thread, we now know that Foley had cybersex with another ex-page two years before the e-mails we’re now discussing, so if there were rumors about him, they warranted looking into - and probably they should have been looked into years ago.
Regardless of Foley’s sexuality, they warranted further investigation.
The correct term is sexual harrasment. A powerful pol and an ambitious page. with no power. It is illegal no matter how it is twisted. Gay or straight,it is not allowed.
Thanks, tom!
And this passes the liberal “are we gay bashing?” test Those letters get sent from a male teacher to my teenager daughter and I’m making a scene at the principal’s office. If this were a female page, we’d still be up in arms (but using the words sexual harrassment a lot more often because its something we are familiar with male-female, and not so familar with male-male - but this is sexual harrassment on top of all the other ookie things it is)
No, it’s being used because “paedophilia” has become effectively synonymous in the common lexicon with abuse of minors. Even you couldn’t remember the technically correct term, so accusing people using a slightly wrong one of “political opportunism” seems somewhat hypocritical. I doubt whether a fraction of one percent of the population knows the term “ephebophilia”, so enough of the partisan diversions, mmm?
Personally, I find the intentions of the linked OpEd pretty hard to divine. Obviously they’re trying to take a swipe at Democrats for allegedly making assumptions on the basis of homosexuality. Clearly, that’s so much bollocks, as even the initial emails would never have been tolerated from a heterosexual Congressman to a female minor. Whether they then go on to imply that the Dems should really be on the WSJ’s side in being suspicious of thar homer-sekshuals, or whether they’re just trying to score points off imaginary hypocrisy; I have no idea. It’s an atrociously written article, regardless. Ah well.
Meanwhile, I’m shocked (shocked!) that Martin Hyde has managed to avoid the crux of the issue in such sterling fashion. Well done, sir. Say, would it be remiss to ask for photos of the genitalia of the man with the stones to defend these actions? They must be mighty large. Or maybe just a little.
There’s a rule against that. I know there’s some rule against that.
What I don’t understand is why we can’t call people like this bigots. They are bigots. They are homophobes. They don’t just have religious differences with homosexuality: they are full blown gay panic bigots. The End!
Which is absolutely stupid, because (as the OP demonstrates) the conservatives are indulging in gay-bashing over the Foley scandal.
Did he ever have it?
I doubt you’d have any use for a WSJ subscription. There’s a lot of good magazines out for elementary school children that would be more appropriate for you, I think.
Did you read my post in its entirety? If so you’d probably recognize your post here was superfluous.